[ On Fri, December 11, 1998 at 12:50:05 (-0500), Todd Vierling wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: sendmail licensing again
>
> On Fri, 11 Dec 1998, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> 
> : However it doesn't really matter to me one way or another.  I just think
> : the segregation of "foreign" code in the tree is a *bad*, *Evil*, thing.
> : 
> : Why not segregate the GPLed binaries too!?!?!?!?!?  How's an end user to
> : know what they stand a chance of fixing otherwise?????
> 
> You're saying the same *overly assuming* statement again.

I don't know if the right description of my words would be "irony", but
clearly you're not getting the underlying meaning I've been trying to
express.....

> Since a commercial distributor must have a way to distribute the GPL-ed
> source, we put it under gnu/ to make this an easy task for maintainers and
> commercial distributors.

What could be difficult about this even if the source is totally
integrated?????

Someone simply uses a script to maintain a list of GPL-ed files:

	cd /usr/src
	find . -print | xargs grep -ni 'free software foundation' |
		awk -F: '{print $1}' | sort -u > share/misc/gnu-src.list

and then that tiny fraction of users who need to use this list can
simply feed this list to pax or whatever:

	pax -wzf gnusrc.tar.gz < share/misc/gnu-src.list

Personally I couldn't care less about that tiny fraction of users -- I'd
recommend they maintain the list of GPL-ed source files themselves
(since it's their responsibility under the law to do so), but since some
of them do have commit access to the NetBSD CVS repository I for one
*won't* say that they shouldn't be doing this maintenance in the
official tree.

Personally when I distribute a customized copy of NetBSD to a customer
in return for fees I make *all* the source available to them, GPL-ed or
not.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>